Beazley Simmons Atkins v. Virginia cruel and unusual punishment Simmons Simmons Atkins Simmons truly unusual Marshall, COMMENT: Predictive Justice : S

Similar documents

帝京国際文化　第18号　山内久史

本組よこ／本組よこ＿榎透＿Ｐ０２３－０５５

Kimberly Kessler Ferzan Kadish Kimberly Kessler Ferzan Self-Defense and the State Ferzan Ferzan Kimberly Kessler Ferzan Ferzan Kadish Respect for life

44-2　宮崎裕介.pwd

ALI ALI Comment a ALI. ALI ALI ALI ALIa 195

H1-H4_日本法学_78-4.ai

1.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (Bentham, 1970, Chap. III) * 6 art of legislation ethics private ethics (Bentham, 1970, Chap. XV) 1.2 (1) (2) *7 (3) (4) (Bentham,

ディスクロージャーの実効性確保

Ÿ_Ł¶-“sŒ{’¨−î

本組よこ／本組よこ＿小林俊明＿Ｐ００１－０３８

自己決定権の論点

102 1 II.Armatta v. Kitzhaber 2 犯罪被害者のさまざまな権利を規定する州憲法修正案と単一主題のルール 1. 事実 Oregon P 1996 Measure 40 Measure 40 Oregon 1 crime vic

Powered by TCPDF ( Title 共謀罪あるいはテロ等組織犯罪準備罪について Sub Title Rethinking on criminal conspiracy in Japan Author 亀井, 源太郎 (Kamei, Gentaro) Pu

entruster fiduciary Restatement of The Law Agency Restatement of Trusts Frankel, Fiduciary Law, 71 Cal. L. Rev Restatement DeMott, Beyond M

_加登田先生_責.indd

556†i’^”R”††j

CNN-45 　HP用.qxp

136 立教アメリカンスタディーズ LGBT Pierceson 2014: 7-13

丸田忠雄.ec6

アメリカ連邦最高裁における公教育像の考察（二）

1980 Rebecca Dresser Dresser 1989 unawareness persistent vegetative state permanent vegetative state 3 obligatory 4 63

65-4 伊藤公哉.pwd

判例研究 Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 Supreme Court of California,

会社法制上の資本制度の変容と企業会計上の資本概念について

Title 近年における常設仲裁裁判所 (PCA) の展開 (1) Author(s) 石塚, 智佐 Citation 一橋法学, 6(2): Issue Date Type Departmental Bulletin Paper Text Version pub

未成年者の医療上の同意能力に対する心理的学的考察について（仮）

【資料４】これまでの議論のまとめ .PDF

条件付償還義務株式の会計処理について

地域社会の安全犯罪抑止―対策の現状とその課題

CW3_A3124A01.indd

RX501NC_LTE Mobile Router取説.indb

坊っちゃん

表参照文献 ( 文献 ). 185, Expert Nurse. 1211, suppl, , CNS 2000, , , , 4

1970年代以降の韓国禁止歌と韓国社会

③京　論－横　７１～９８／★京先生

) 2 3) : : 15 4) 2 Vol. 52, No. 4, October 2006

05 ’łŒì†E„³›i†E‘tﬁú

Default Swap Bell Braverman Reich

Ł\”ƒ1PDFŠp

商学　６６‐１☆／１６．田口

2) 3) 2) Ohkusa, 1996 ; 1999 ; Ohtake and Ohkusa, 1994 ; La Croix and A. Kawamura, Reject American Economic Review, Journal of Political Econom

0. 1. Opening Ceremony 2. Table Discussion (A~F) 3. Table Rotation 4. Symposium 5. Curriculum Exchange 6. Legal Course 7. Welcome Party 8. Life Style

PowerPoint プレゼンテーション

‡€‡È‡½‡à“s‡¯‡é…A…†…−…JŠ¯−w

02_岡本慎平様.indd

H1-H4_日本法学_78-3.ai

瑕疵ある起訴状への法的対応論 Cotton 事件判決から Apprendi 準則違反の位相を知る八百章嘉.

Title 英国ブレア政権下の貴族院改革 : 第二院の構成と機能 Author(s) 田中, 嘉彦 Citation 一橋法学, 8(1): Issue Date Type Departmental Bulletin Paper Text Version publis

2012_05_GLK_cover.indd

D2A操作解説

2.8% 2.0% 2.4% 2.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 3.8% 5.6% 25.6% 29.3% 64.6% 60.0% 1

Q&A最低資本金特例 PDF

2004cyukan_ir.pdf

2012_10_A_cover.indd

‡o‡P†C‡P‡Q”R„û†^‡P†C‡P‡Q

Masaya ARAKI EC EEC 1958 EEC 86 EC 82 EEC 1971 GEMA [1971CMLR D35] EC EC EC EC

せきがはら08月号.ec6

日本国憲法における「社会福祉」

RTM RTM Risk terrain terrain RTM RTM 48

性犯罪者情報の管理・公開(諸外国の制度)

Ｐ０８・０１／柴田　〃　加藤　柴田　平島

Transcription:

Roper v. Simmons Simmons v. Roper Simmons v. Roper Roper v. Simmons Simmons Simmons

Beazley Simmons Atkins v. Virginia cruel and unusual punishment Simmons Simmons Atkins Simmons truly unusual Marshall, COMMENT: Predictive Justice : Simmons v. Roper and The Possible End of The Juvenile Death Penalty, 72 FORDHAM L. REV. 2889 2004. State ex rel. Simmons v. Roper, 112 S. W. 3d 397, 400 Mo. 2003. See Bookspan, Too Young To Die?: Evolving Standards of Decency and The Juvenile Death Penalty in America, 21 DELAWARE LAWYER 19 2003/2004, Tennen, The Supreme Courts Influence on the Death Penalty in America: a Hollow Hope? 14 B. U. PUB. INT. L. J. 251, 255 2005. See generally Fagan & West, The Decline of the Juvenile Death Penalty: Scientific Evidence of Evolving Norms, 95 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 427 2005. 536 U. S. 304 2002. Simmons, 112 S. W. 3d at 399 400. State v. Simmons, 944 S. W. 2d 165, 191 1997.

national consensus Thompson v. Oklahoma Stanford v. Kentucky Stanford Penry v. Lynaugh Atkins Simmons v. Roper, 112 S. W. 3d at 399. 487 U. S. 815 1988. 492 U. S. 361 1989. 492 U. S. 302 1989. 536 U. S. 304 2002. Roper v. Simmons, 540 U. S. 1160 2004. Brief for Petitioner Simmons, No. 03 633, 2004 WL 903158 U. S. 2004. Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 2005.

Thompson Stanford Penry Atkins Atkins v. Virginia, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 70 U. S. L. W. 4548 2002 Id. at 1190. Id. Id. at 1190 92. 487 U. S. at 818 38. Id. at 835. 492 U. S. at 370 71. 492 U. S. at 340. 536 U. S. at 316.

Stanford Id. at 312. 125 S. Ct. at 1192. Id. at 1192 94. Id. at 1195 96. Id. at 1196 97. Id. at 1198 1204.

Id. at 1206. Id. at 1217. Id. at 1217, 1222. Id. at 1225. Id. at 1227. See e. g., Bookspan, supra note 3 at 19 20, Issues Forum: Juveniles and the Death Penalty: Exploring the Issues in Roper v. Simmons, 5 J. CENTER CHILDREN & CTS. 147, 149 2004. See e. g., Varland, Marking The Progress of a Maturing Society: Reconsidering The Constitutionality of Death Penalty Application in Light of Evolving Standards of Decency, 28 HAMLINE L. REV. 311 2005, Heffernan, Constitutional Historicism: an Examination of the Eighth Amendment Evolving Standards of Decency Test, 54 AM. U. L. REV. 1355 2005, Ferguson, The Implications of Developmental Cognitive Research on Evolving Standards of Decency and The

Imposition of The Death Penalty on Juveniles, 54 AM. U. L. REV. 441 2004, Mabey, Stanford v. Kentucky in Light of Atkins v. Virginia: Reexamining The Juvenile Death Penalty under Changed Standards of Decency, 30 N. E. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CON. 19 2004. See e. g., Arvin, Roper v. Simmons and International Law, 83 DENV. U. L. REV. 209 2005, Jackson, Constitutional Comparisons: Convergence, Resistance, Engagement, 119 HARV. L. REV. 109 2005, Alford, Roper v. Simmons and Our Constitution in International Equipoise, 53 UCLA L. REV. 1 2005. U. S. CONST. amend. VIII. Mazingo, Roper v. Simmons: The Height of Hubris, 29 LAW & PSYCHOL. REV. 261, 267 2005. In re Klemmer, 136 U. S. 436, 447 1890.

Mazingo, supra note 38 at 269. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 405 1986. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 1958. 492 U. S. at 331. Id. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, 597 1977. Lee, The Constitutional Right Against Excessive Punishment, 91 VA. L. REV. 677, 678 79 2005. See generally Radin, Cruel Punishment and Respect for Persons: Super Due Process for Death, 53 S. CAL. L. REV. 1143 1980, Streiker & Streiker, Sober Second Thoughts: Reflections on Two Decades of Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment, 109 HARV. L. REV. 355, 370 71 1995, Suleiman, The

Roper v. Simmons Capital Punishment Exception: A Case for Constitutionalizing The Substantive Criminal law, 104 COLUM. L. REV. 426 2004. See generally Chin, Supreme Court Review: Hope v. Pelzer: Increasing The Accountability of State Actors in Prison Systems-A Necessary Enterprise in Guaranteeing The Eighth Amendment Rights of Prison Inmates: Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730 2002, 93 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINLOGY 913 2003. Ewing v. California Lutz, The Eighth Amendment Reconsidered: A Framework for Analyzing The Excessiveness Prohibition, 80 N. Y. U. L. REV. 1862, 1864 66 2005.

majoritarian standard Roper v. Simmons Id. at 1865. Id. at 1881. Id. at 1882. Id. at 1888. Id. at 1867. Id. at 1868. Id. at 1884 85. Id. at 1891 93. Id. at 1890.

Simmons v. Roper Simmons v. Roper Simmons Benjamin Tessmer Tessmer Simmons Benjamin Crook Mahon, Simmons v. Roper: Trying to Strike the Balance between Strictly Obeying Supreme Court Precedent and Overruling Outmoded Concepts of Capital Punishment, 23 QUINNI- PIAC L. REV. 937, 952 2004 State v. Simmons, 944 S. W. 2d 165, 169 Mo. 1997. Id. at 170. Id. See Mahon, supra note 50 at 952. 944 S. W. 2d at 170.

Benjamin mandatory review Mahon, supra note 50 at 953. Id. See Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 1988 ; see also Mo. Ann Stat. 565.020.2 WEST 2004. Mahon, supra note 51 at 954. Id. at 954 55. 944 S. W. 2d 165 Mo. 1997 en banc.

depravity of mind aggravating circumstance Stanford Atkins Atkins Atkins Id. at 171 181. See Simmons v. Bowersox, No. 4; 97 CV 2415JCH E. D. Mo. Aug. 5, 1999, appeal denied, Simmons v. Bowersox, 235 F. 3d 1124 8th Cir. 2001, cert. denied, Simmons v. Leubbers, 534 U. S. 924 2001. Mahon, supra note 50 at 955. Id. at 955 56. Id. at 956. State ex rel. Simmons v. Roper, 112 S. W. 3d 397 Mo. 2003 en banc, cert. granted, 124 S. Ct. 1171 2004 mem.. Id.

Atkins Stith Thompson Stanford Penry Atkins Id. at 399. Id. at 400. Reed v. Ross, 468 U. S. 1, 16 1984. 112 S. W. 3d at 401 n. 3. Id. at 400 01. Id. at 399 400. Id. at 401.

Stanford Atkins Stanford conceptions of decency of modern American society as a whole Atkins Penry Atkins Atkins Id. at 403 04. Id. at 407. Id. at 406 07. Id. at 406. Id. at 407. Id. at 407 09. Id. at 407 08.

Stanford Id. at 408. Id. Id. Id. at 408 09. Id. Id. at 409. Id. Id. Id. Id.

Stanford Stanford Atkins Atkins Id. at 410. Id. at 410 11. Id. Id. at 411. Id. Id. Id. Id. at 411 13.

Wolff Wolff Atkins Stanford Thompson Id. at 411 12. Id. Id. at 413. Id. Id. at 415. Id. Id. at 415 16.

Price Price Stanford Stanford Id. at 416. Id. at 417. Id. Id. Id. at 416 17. Id. Id. at 418 21.

Stanford Atkins Stanford Atkins Atkins Id. at 419. Id. Patterson v. Texas, 536 U. S. 984 2002, In re Stanford, 123 S. Ct. 472 2002 mem., Mullin v. Hain, 538 U. S. 957 2003 mem.. 112 S. W. 3d at 419 20. Id. at 421.